Fixtures. Oil Lease. Removal on Default. Gartlan et al. V. Hickman, 49 S. E. 14 (W. Va.)

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

286 YALE LAW JOURNAL.

lawful right of a person, if such drainage does not unnecessarily or unreason-
ably injure his neighbor. See also O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 25 Minn. 355.

Equity — Specific Performance — Contract to make a Will. — Laird et
al. v. Vila et al., 100 N. W. 656 (Minn.). — Held, that when a party has
legally bound himself to will his property to minor relatives in consideration
that the beneficiaries shall assume a peculiar and domestic relation to the
promisor, and render him services of a character to make it impossible to
estimate their value by any pecuniary standard, and the agreement is executed
on behalf of the promisee and beneficiaries, a specific performance of the
contract will be decreed.

A person may make a valid contract to devise his lands in a particular
way. Parsell v. Siryker, 41 N. Y. 480; East v. Solihite, 72 N. C. 562. And
specific performance on such contracts may be had. Burns v. Smith, 21 Mont.
251 ; Johnson v. Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. 332. Especially is this so where through
trust in the agreement improvements have been put upon the land. Harman
v. Harman, 70 Fed. 894; Erwin v. Erwin, 139 N. Y. 616. And it may be
the same even though the contract be parol. Brown v. Sutton, 129 U. S. 238;
Walters v. Walters, 132 111. 467; contra, Morgan v. Tillet, 55 N. C. 39.
There are cases almost identical with the one under discussion. Sharkey v.
McDermott, 91 Mo. 647; Codine v. Kidd, 64 Hun 585. A few jurisdictions
do not follow the general rule. Stafford v. Bartholomew, 2 Ind. 153;
Hazel ton v. Reed, 46 Kan. 73. And even Illinois has held that such an agree-
ment cannot be specifically enforced on account of injustice to the heirs.
Woods v. Evans, 113 111. 186.

Fixtures — Oil Lease — Removal on Default. — Gartlan et al. V. Hick-
man, 49 S. E. 14 (W. Va.). — Engines, oil-well rig, tanks, pipes, etc., were
placed on land under a lease, in which it was agreed that lessees should have
the privilege of removing them at any time. The lease was forfeited and
terminated for non-payment of rental. Held, that the machinery did not be-
come part of the realty.

There is a difference of opinion as to cases parallel to the above where
there was no agreement for removal. Roseville A. Min. Co. et. al. v. Iowa
Gulch Min. Co., 15 Colo. 29; Conrad v. Saginaw Min. Co., 54 Mich. 249;
Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Pa. St. 302. The agreement between the parties to con-
sider what might be realty as personalty will be enforced. Fratt v. Whittier,
58 Cal. 126; Hunt -v. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279. Agreements could
not effect the rights of bona fide purchasers. Roswand v. Anderson, 33 Kan-
264; Bartholomew v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. 239. Nor is an agreement con-
clusive if serious damage would result to the freehold by their removal. Ford
v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344; Sword v. Low, 122 111. 487. Abandonment of the
premises before the expiration of the lease is not waiver of the right to remove
fixtures where they were placed on the land with the intention of removing.
Conde v. Lee, 171 N. Y. 662. Chattels placed on agricultural lands, to become
fixtures, must be germane to farming purposes. Perkins v. Swank, 43 Mass.
349; Mcjunken v. Dupree, 44 Tex. 500.

Guaranty — Construction. — McAfee v. Wyckoff, 89 N. Y. Supp. 996. —
Held, that a guaranty of payment by a vendee for goods to be manufactured
by the vendor "as per contract," extended only to the price of goods actually
delivered and was not a guaranty for breach of contract.